Blergh, people!

As most people, I joined Google+ yesterday. 

As the setting ups were going, it was suggested that I should add, from a previously selected list, as much people to my "circles" as possible. Not many known faces, but anyway. That would make me have richer "experience". By then I was expecting to start seeing music and listening to colors. That didn't happen. Au contrarie, I kept getting updates from those people. Some nice, some totally irrelevant.

Among the list of people I had to choose from was this guy named Tom something, whom I later figured it was the guy who created a thing called MySpace, some years ago.

So today, the day after, I was browsing stuff trying to get more from my "experience", and on top of my home page on G+, there was this post by him.

To sum it up, he is complaining that, in one day, his "followers" in G+ went from x to x+28,000. Really? He should be ecstatic that some people still remember him.

Oh, wait, they don't. He is one of the suggestions, remember? People added him just because, like they do in other social networks, as Twitter and Pinterest. 

But, behold! That is not the only thing he is complaining about. 

He is also complaining that since Google+ was open to the "public" (sic), "I've seen a lot more one word, short phrase responses to my posts. I've seen a little more spam (maybe 3 or 4 comments out of 100). I've seen a little more "Tom, please fix MySpace!" (maybe 1 out of a 100) And I've seen quite a bit more "internet" spelling. :-) (hehe)". 

Wow. I had no idea he was such an intellectual. What is he doing wasting his priceless thoughts online? Why doesn't he go for a real academic career at, say, Harvard? Work for the art, for the pleasure, not for the money. That would be way more consistent with his arguments.

He is also questioning Google's hability to deal with the "public", saying "So if Google cared about this -- and I'm not sure they do -- would they be willing to change the way comments work on all G+ content to try and encourage better conversation? Maybe it's something worth testing only on large users like me. (I don't mind being a guinea pig.)". 

Of course you don't, Tom. You failed big time with MySpace, you need the attention. And... "large users"? It's more for large douche. 

And he finishes (thank god) the manifesto against all kinds of blergh, people (or should I say commoners?) in an apologetic-for-nothing kind of way: 

"Wanting to talk about things the way I do is just my preference, and it's certainly not shared by everyone." No kidding! And goes on: "Is it anachronistic to want this kind of communication in today's Internet, with so many people online, and communities needing to grow large enough to fuel the business purposes for which they were created? I haven't truly thought through how this "problem" can be addressed (...)and hey, worrying about these kinds of thing isn't my job anymore." 

Damn right it isn't, Tom. Maybe the failure of MySpace and the smashing success of all things Google should be your hint.